Report on Mandatory Sentences - Law Reform Commission

(4) Drug Mules
4.52 The Commission observes that low-level drug mules are more susceptible to being caught under
section 15A or section 15B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 than high-level drug barons. First, it has
been noted that drug mules are generally vulnerable and desperate people who have been exploited by
those higher up the drugs chain rather than hardened criminals. 111 They are thus less likely to be adept
at evading detection and it has been noted that they are sometimes placed in the direct line of fire in order
to divert attention from other transportations. Second, as noted at paragraphs 4.04 to 4.07 and 4.24, the
legislative provisions dealing with “possession” and “mens rea” are broad enough to capture those
operating at the lower end of the drugs chain who are more likely to be in actual possession of the
controlled drugs and less likely to know their market value. In addition, while drug mules might benefit
from the exceptional and specific circumstance of a “guilty plea”, they are less likely through lack of
information or fear to benefit from the exceptional and specific circumstance of “material assistance”.
4.53 Therefore, it has been observed that the majority of those being sentenced under the
presumptive sentencing regime are low-level drug mules rather than high-level drug barons. 112 During
the public consultation and roundtable discussion, practitioners stated that this is their experience. From
its own review of the case law in this area, 113 the Commission agrees that this is probably the case.
4.54 The fact that the use of drug mules in the drugs trade is at the very least “popular” has been
confirmed by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The Centre has made a
recent attempt to define the term “drug mule” for use in a European context, 114 indicating that the current
understanding of the term is:
“A drug courier who is paid, coerced or tricked into transporting drugs across an international
border but who has no further commercial interest in the drugs.” 115
C
Presumptive Minimum Sentences under the Firearms Acts
4.55 As discussed in Chapter 1, the Criminal Justice Act 2006 amended the Firearms Acts with the
result that many firearms offences now carry a presumptive sentence of five or 10 years. In this Part, the
Commission considers the application of these categories of presumptive minimum sentence by
examining: (1) the elements of the relevant firearms offences, (2) the relevant penalty provisions, and (3)
the early release provisions.
(1) Elements of the Offences
(a) Section 15 of the Firearms Act 1925
4.56 Section 15 of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended, 116 provides that it is an offence to possess or
control any firearm or ammunition: (a) with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, or
(b) with intent to enable any other person by means of the firearm or ammunition to endanger life or
cause serious injury to property, regardless of whether any injury to person or property has actually been
caused.
111
112
113
114
115
116
O’Malley Sentencing Law and Practice (Thomson Round Hall, 2 nd ed, 2006) at 340-341.
O’Malley Sentencing - Towards a Coherent System (Round Hall, 2011) at 103.
Most of this case law emanates from the Court of Criminal Appeal.
“A definition of ‘drug mules’ for use in a European context” (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
Addiction, 2012) at 10.
“A definition of ‘drug mules’ for use in a European context” (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
Addiction, 2012) at 3.
Section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
141